QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS AUDIT

HANDBOOK

Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training British Columbia

Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training PO Box 9883 Stn Prov Govt Victoria BC V8W 9T6

Phone: (250) 356-5406 Facsimile: (250) 387-3750 E-mail: DQABsecretariat@gov.bc.ca

November 2017

PREFACE

This Handbook provides guidance to post-secondary institutions on the standards, policies and procedures of the Quality Assurance Process Audit in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training and the Degree Quality Assessment Board acknowledges with thanks the Quality Assurance Audit Committee for sharing their experience and expertise in development of the QAPA process.

In the interest of improving the quality of the Handbook, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Skills & Training invites notification of errors and omissions as well as comments and suggestions to the Degree Quality Assessment Board Secretariat.

1

November 2017

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS AUDIT (QAPA) FRAMEWORK

The Minister of Advanced Education tasked the Degree Quality Assessment Board (DQAB) with developing and implementing a periodic quality assurance process audit of internal program review policies and processes at public post-secondary institutions. The Terms of Reference for the DQAB establish that audits will be based on information provided by public post-secondary institutions to ensure that rigorous, ongoing program and institutional quality assessment processes have been implemented. The DQAB convened a standing committee, the Quality Assurance Audit Committee, to make recommendations on development and implementation of the process. The committee draws its membership from public sector institutions and the DQAB. The committee endorses the definition of periodic audit used in the 2011 Review of the Degree Approval Process in British Columbia (Stubbs Report):

An evidence-based process undertaken through peer review that investigates the procedures and mechanisms by which an institution ensures its quality assurance and quality enhancement (p. 21).

Guiding Principles 1. Transparent and credible evidence of robust quality assurance criteria and

processes are vital to BC public post-secondary institutions, the Degree Quality Assessment Board and the Ministry; demonstrate accountability; and contribute to the national and international reputation of the BC public post-secondary system.

2. Credible quality assurance should be rigourous and have peer evaluation as an

essential feature. 3. QAPA standards will recognize the diversity and different mandates of BC public

post secondary institutions. 4. Primary responsibility and accountability for educational program quality assurance

rests with post-secondary institutions themselves. 5. QAPA will be carried out so as to maximise the opportunity to:

affirm, and add value to, the internal quality assurance processes at each institution; and

share best practices from other BC institutions and elsewhere. 6. QAPA will promote a collaborative and supportive process that benefits BC public

post- secondary system.

2 November 2017

1.0 Objectives The main objectives of the quality assurance process audit (QAPA) are to ascertain that the institution:

a) Continues to meet the program review policy requirements outlined in the DQAB’s Exempt Status Criteria and Guidelines and the Degree Program Review Criteria and Guidelines, as applicable to the institution;

b) Has and continues to meet appropriate program review processes and policies for all credential programs; and

c) Applies its quality assurance process in relation to those requirements and responds to review findings appropriately.

2.0 Quality Assurance Process Audit 2.1 Initiation of the Process The DQAB will develop an eight year calendar for reviews starting with a two-year pilot phase. The QAPA year will be April 1 – March 31. At the beginning of April, the DQAB will contact institutions scheduled in the QAPA calendar to set up the QAPA site visit date. At this time, the institution will also provide:

A schedule of completed reviews and follow-up actions from the last internal review cycle; and

A schedule of planned reviews for the institution’s next internal review cycle. The DQAB will select a sample of recent program reviews provided by the institution, normally three to five, for assessment by the QAPA team. The selected program reviews are those that the DQAB consider are representative of various areas of the institution’s educational activities. Congruent with the 1.0 Objectives, the QAPA team will examine whether the institution’s commitments made when the programs were approved or most recently reviewed are being met. The DQAB Secretariat will work with each institution to ensure the expectations of the process are clear, including the information and documentation to be provided, as well as to establish a time frame for completing elements required to carry out the review, such as scheduling the site visit. 2.2 QAPA Team The QAPA team will normally consist of three members with senior academic administrative experience or with significant experience participating in institutional and program review processes. The DQAB will select the team lead. The institution will be consulted prior to the selection of assessors to avoid any conflicts of interest. The institution may nominate up to five assessors. The DQAB takes the institution’s nominations under consideration, but reserves the right to make the final determination.

3 November 2017

A member from a peer institution will accompany the QAPA team on the site visit as an observer. The observer will be from an upcoming institution that is scheduled to be assessed in order to help the institution better understand and prepare for its own site visit. The observer should be present for the full site visit, including team meetings but will not participate actively either in the interviews or in writing the report. Normally, 6 weeks before the site visit, a DQAB representative and the DQAB Secretariat will meet with the QAPA team to provide an orientation to the work of the DQAB, to the QAPA, and to the assessment criteria. 2.3 Institution Report on Quality Assurance Policy and Practice A minimum of two months prior to the site visit, the institution will submit an Institution Report. The Institution Report is normally provided by the administrator(s) responsible for quality assessment and improvement processes at the institution. The report is to introduce the QAPA team to the internal processes currently and previously in use at the institution and any other materials needed during the site visit. The report should focus on how the internal policies and program review processes are reflective of the institution’s mission, whether the internal process gauges such things, how faculty scholarship and professional development inform teaching and continue to be a foundation for ensuring that programming is current and up to date, how learning outcomes are being achieved, and how student progress is assessed and measured. The Institution Report will also include the following:

policy and processes for the approval of new programs; policy and processes for ongoing program and institutional assessment to ensure

the effectiveness of its educational programs and services, and for continuous development and improvement; and

quality assessment issues the institution would like the assessors to address, if any.

Along with the Institution Report, the institution will submit, for each of the reviews selected:

the policy and process in effect at the time of the review; the self-study document used as part of its internal quality assurance process; the external review team’s report; and an account of the institution’s follow-up response.

Other relevant documents may also be requested. 2.4 Site Visit The QAPA team will normally meet for 2 full days with members of the senior administration responsible for implementing the quality assurance process, and with the deans and the program review teams whose program reviews were selected for sampling. The objective of the site visit is to validate the statements in the institutional quality assurance report as well as to verify elements contained in the reviews sampled.

4 November 2017

2.5 QAPA Report The report should address the objectives of the QAPA identified in section 1.0. The report should also identify strengths and weaknesses in the internal quality assurance processes examined and should provide recommendations. Finally, the QAPA team should identify leading policies or procedures or effective practices in an institution’s internal review process that might be shared with other institutions. The QAPA team leader submits the report to the DQAB two weeks after the site visit. The DQAB will provide the report to the institution for feedback on any factual errors and for response. The institution is given 30 days to correct factual errors and the team lead reviews and finalizes the report. The institution is given another 90 days to provide a response to the QAPA team’s report. The DQAB will publish the report with the institution’s response appended. In the interests of transparency and accountability, the results of the QAPA and institutional responses will be posted on both the institution’s website and the DQAB’s website. 2.6 Follow-up If required, the institution will submit to the DQAB a progress report on its responses to the QAPA findings, particularly to recommendations, a year after publication of the report or earlier if deemed appropriate by the DQAB. The DQAB and the institution will publish the progress report on their respective websites. Comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness of institutional actions will form part of the next QAPA. 3.0 Cycle At least every eight years, the institution will undergo a QAPA. Institutions are responsible for preserving and retaining records of relevant documents used in its own internal review of program/academic units. Such records should be retained, at least, of the last full program/academic unit review cycle. 4.0 Annual Reporting In its Institutional Accountability Plan and Report to the Ministry, public institutions are to provide a description of the program/academic unit review process at that particular institution and confirmation given that recommendations of the review process(s) have been considered and implemented where possible.

5 November 2017

Appendix 1: Quality Assurance Process Audit (QAPA) Assessment Criteria The QAPA assessment will focus on:

1. Overall process

a. Does the process reflect the institution’s mandate, mission, and values? The institution should be able to demonstrate that it has an established institutional and program review planning cycle and process to assess the effectiveness of its educational programs and services, their responsiveness to student, labour market, and social needs. The process should contribute to the continuous improvement of the institution.

b. Is the scope of the process appropriate? (i) There should be evidence of a formal, institutionally approved policy and procedure for the periodic review of programs against published standards that includes the following characteristics:

A self-study undertaken by faculty members and administrators of the program based on evidence relating to program performance, including strengths and weaknesses, desired improvements, and future directions. A self-study takes into account: o the continuing appropriateness of the program’s structure, admissions

requirements, method of delivery and curriculum for the program’s educational goals and standards;

o the adequacy and effective use of resources (physical, technological, financial and human);

o faculty performance including the quality of teaching and supervision and demonstrable currency in the field of specialization;

o that the learning outcomes achieved by students/graduates meet the program’s stated goals, the credential level standard, and where appropriate, the standards of any related regulatory, accrediting or professional association;

o the continuing adequacy of the methods used for evaluating student progress and achievement to ensure that the program’s stated goals have been achieved;

o the graduate satisfaction level, student satisfaction level, and graduation rate; and

o where appropriate, the graduate employment rates, employer satisfaction level, and advisory board satisfaction level.

6 November 2017

An assessment conducted by a panel that includes independent experts external to the institution. The assessment should normally include a site visit, a written report that assesses program quality and may recommend quality improvements; and an institution response to the report;

A summary of the conclusions of the evaluation that is made appropriately available.

(ii) The institution can demonstrate that it has a policy and process for new program approval that includes peer / external review by appropriate experts.

c. Are the guidelines differentiated and adaptable to respond to the needs and contexts of different units, e.g. faculties or departments or credential level?

(i) Are the guidelines adaptable to the range of programs and offerings within the institution? (ii) Do the guidelines provide measurable, consistent means and direction to undertake diversified program review? (iii) Are the guidelines consistent with institutional Mandate, mission, vision and associated strategic goals?

d. Does the process promote quality improvement?

(i) The institution should be able to demonstrate that it has appropriate accountability mechanisms functioning for vocational, professional and academic programs.

(ii) The institution should be able to demonstrate how faculty scholarship and professional development inform teaching and continue to be a foundation for ensuring that programming is up to date.

(iii) The institution should be able to demonstrate how learning outcomes are being achieved and how student progress is assessed and measured.

e. Are there particular quality assessment issues raised by the institution in its self-study that the institution would like the assessors to address?

7 November 2017

2. Review findings a. Were the responses to the sample program review findings adequate?

The institution has a follow up process for internal program reviews and acts in accordance with it.

b. Does the process inform future decision making? The program review ensures that the program remains consistent with the institution’s current mission, goals and long-range plan.

c. Are the review findings appropriately disseminated? The institution has a well-defined system to disseminate the review findings to the appropriate entities.

8 November 2017